Lds Ched De Mission Steps Down....

[Pahoran]

I think I understand that point of view, but I don't buy it. A legal and lawful marriage is a different relationship than a civil union, even if they have the same legal rights.

Anyway, I don't want to rehash this debate. My point was merely that "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have" sounds more like something a prop 8 opponent would say, and I'm genuinely curious if his position has shifted.

Okay "Analytics." I'll play along.

I guess you haven't had much exposure to the post-Prop 8 debate; because I frequently see marriage defenders making such statements. By contrast, marriage subverters are usually saying things like "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the religious views they want to have," although usually with some caveat to the effect that such religious views are to play no part in anyone's actual decision-making.

Statements like that, you see, are essentially defensive in nature. They are made in response to the speaker's specific actions on a specific issue being represented (or perhaps misrepresented) as an expression of prejudice against an entire group of people. As such, they are typically made in support of the action that called forth the criticism, and indicate that the speaker's actions were informed by views other than those imputed to him.

So there you are; now you know.

You're welcome,

Pahoran

[USU78]

Perhaps you should do a whois and find out...

Nothing unusual here at all: the homophile bigots are at it again. Bow to their wishes. Accede to their demands that your thoughts, words and actions are ideologically pure and rigorously homophiliac, and you may keep your job.

[USU78]

Vidmar said, "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have...I respect the rights of all of our athletes, regardless of their race, their religion or their sexual orientation."

Interesting comment from a Prop 8 suporter. Have his views changed from when he took an activist role to deny same-sex couples the right to have the relationships they wanted?

Then you plainly haven't been paying attention: it's compelling everybody else to call their relationships what they aren't and other, similar issues that were in play for the Prop 8 supporters. Your accusation that anybody pro Prop 8 is a hateful homophobe is just silly.

[Analytics]

Then you plainly haven't been paying attention: it's compelling everybody else to call their relationships what they aren't and other, similar issues that were in play for the Prop 8 supporters. Your accusation that anybody pro Prop 8 is a hateful homophobe is just silly.

I never accused, argued, implied, or thought, that "anybody pro Prop 8 is a hateful homophobe."

Just so I understand your position (and I open this question to everybody), do you fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have?

In multiple jurisdictions, same-sex couples have the legal right to enter into the relationship known as legal marriage. Do you fully respect the right of same-sex couples in those jurisdictions to have that relationship? If you support that right, would you support propositions that take away that right?

[Jeff K.]

Red Herring alert.....

In California gay couples had all the legal rights married couples had, they simply did not call it marriage. See Family Code

[USU78]

Just so I understand your position (and I open this question to everybody), do you fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have?

Planning a roadblock complete with Rohrschach tests, Detective Sergeant?

[Jaybear]

Red Herring alert.....

In California gay couples had all the legal rights married couples had, they simply did not call it marriage. See Family Code

Had? No, gay couples hadthe right to enter into marriage, until the passage of Prop 8.

That one right was so important the CA Supreme ruled that denying it was violation of their constitutional rights.

That one right was so important the the LDS Church asked its members take an active role in changing the CA constitution to deprive gay couples of that "simple" right.

So what is your point? Where is the red herring?

[Jeff K.]

That is a false assertion Jaybear, the code was in place before Prop 8 passed. But then you are known for your disengenuous statements.

[Jaybear]

That is a false assertion Jaybear, the code was in place before Prop 8 passed. But then you are known for your disengenuous statements.

Why must you always go negative Jeff? Nature? Nurture? Perhaps its a personality trait that could be fixed with aversion therapy.

That said, what did I say that was false or disingenuous? Gays had the right to legally marry prior to the passage of Prop 8. I understand some 15,000 gay couples were married in California, before voters took away that right, thanks in part to the efforts of people like Mr. Vidmar.

[Jeff K.]

The code was in there before hand, therefore the rights existed before hand. You love to toss out those red herrings that fall apart upon closer scrutiny.

The 15K gay couples married did so because a judge chose to allow it even though a good chance existed that the courts or the people would decide that calling a gay union marriage (even as all the rights of union were there) was incorrect. So mark it up to error on the part of political agendas. But then you knew that. Hence my view of your disengenuousness.

[Jeff K.]

Why must you always go negative Jeff? Nature? Nurture? Perhaps its a personality trait that could be fixed with aversion therapy.

Or it could be my habit of accurately describing your action. When someone is not entirely truthful they often find having it pointed out to them as a negative.

[Jaybear]

Or it could be my habit of accurately describing your action. When someone is not entirely truthful they often find having it pointed out to them as a negative.

Here is a lesson in manners.

Next time instead of going negative and accuse me of engaging in misrepresentation and/or being disingenuous, why don't you try saying "Jaybear, you are wrong."

Then you can calmly explain why you think I am wrong.

BTW, your assertion that .... "The 15K gay couples married did so because a judge chose to allow it even though a good chance existed that the courts or the people would decide that calling a gay union marriage (even as all the rights of union were there) was incorrect."

... is false. It was not a judge that allowed them to marry, but the CA Supreme Court, the final authority, that did so. It took a constitutional amendment (Prop to deny gays the right to marry.

You were wrong. I was right. But, I won't be expecting an apology. I know that would be asking too much of you. But I do hope that you try to post in a more civil manner in the future. I really get tired of you calling me a liar, especially since you have never once identified a single false factual statement that I have made.

[Jeff K.]

I suggest you follow your own advice. It is bad manners to be disengenuous, it reflects a lack of intellectual respect for those with whom you theoretically wish to dialogue with.

When one is caught is too many obfuscations, their reputation precedes them and one has to recognize that the error was purposeful and done with malice and forethought. People should be called on it when they do it. Perhaps some of them will learn to act in a more honest manner, some of them.

Let this be your lesson in manners, lets hope you learn from it.

[Jeff K.]

BTW, your assertion that .... "The 15K gay couples married did so because a judge chose to allow it even though a good chance existed that the courts or the people would decide that calling a gay union marriage (even as all the rights of union were there) was incorrect."

It is common practice to suspend the ruling while it is certified in a higher court,. I suggest you cease the obfuscation, you are only embarrassing yourself.

[Jaybear]

It is common practice to suspend the ruling while it is certified in a higher court,. I suggest you cease the obfuscation, you are only embarrassing yourself.

What are you talking about?

There is no higher court than the CA Supreme Court, when interpreting the CA Constitution. It was the decision of that Court that led to the 15,000 gay couples who were married, before the decision became moot by the Prop 8 amendment.

Interesting strategy. Rather than admit you are wrong and apologize, you make an inane statement, then claim victory. Strangely, I think it works for you.

JEFF: I suggest you follow your own advice. It is bad manners to be disengenuous, it reflects a lack of intellectual respect for those with whom you theoretically wish to dialogue with.

Right. I am disingenuous because I choose to defend the fact and opinions I that I actual make, rather than the ones you imagine.

[Walden]

Funny how people of a certain stripe or religion lost their job because they supported a lifestyle or a way of life that others did not agree with. But then 1930's Germany was a pretty crazy place. Of course their civil liberties were not infringed upon when they were restricted from where they could work. The right to association and the right to work are not compatible civil liberties you know.

"So do the rights of Jews in 1930 for their life and beliefs trump the rights of Germans to voice their concerns about their leadership capacity given the sensitive nature of the topic of race?"

Such reasoning is an interesting echo of the past is it not?

Wow, for someone who has gone to great lengths to continually berate jaybear for being "disingenuous," it is interesting that you choose to include Hitler's Germany as an analogy to Prop 8 and civil liberties....yes, that sounds like a very authentic, linear argument.....thanks for the lesson in how to go about making a valid argument. Unbelievable.

Nobody kicked Vidmar out of his job. He was not forced by superiors to leave his post. Rather, he chose to leave due to the distraction that his activism surrounding Prop 8 had created.

Listen, I am not here to rehash the great Prop 8 debate....that horse has been beaten to death on this board and it is clear that proponents on both sides are firmly entrenched in the viewpoints. I am not attempting to convince anyone that their opinion is wrong. My point was to correct Deborah and her curious argument regarding the "thought police".....Vidmar was in no way "punished" for his thoughts. Everyone is free to think what they want. But when the leader of an organization such as the Olympic team actively protests and contributes large amounts of money to a very devisive cause, then he has passed the point of thought into activism. A simple statement by Vidmar likely would have gone unnoticed; active participation and contributions of large sums of cash, not so much.

I am all for activism by the way. It has done much for our country. And as many people before him have found, Vidmar is not the first victim to be harmed because of his own activist actions. Somehow, I think that in the end the LDS church will likely benefit from this....yet another example of the "persecution" of gods chosen people.

[Jeff K.]

Wow, for someone who has gone to great lengths to continually berate jaybear for being "disingenuous," it is interesting that you choose to include Hitler's Germany as an analogy to Prop 8 and civil liberties....yes, that sounds like a very authentic, linear argument.....thanks for the lesson in how to go about making a valid argument. Unbelievable.

Nobody kicked Vidmar out of his job. He was not forced by superiors to leave his post. Rather, he chose to leave due to the distraction that his activism surrounding Prop 8 had created.

All in the name of activism eh? Same mindset, same type of people. As a German it is indeed a disturbing thing to see in other nations. Pressure to quite because of one's belief in marriage is indeed very similar to pressuring someone to quite because they happened to be the wrong religion in a country.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 12 May 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

It is common practice to suspend the ruling while it is certified in a higher court,. I suggest you cease the obfuscation, you are only embarrassing yourself.

What are you talking about?

There is no higher court than the CA Supreme Court, when interpreting the CA Constitution. It was the decision of that Court that led to the 15,000 gay couples who were married, before the decision became moot by the Prop 8 amendment.

Interesting strategy. Rather than admit you are wrong and apologize, you make an inane statement, then claim victory. Strangely, I think it works for you.

A federal appeals court rejected a plea by gay and lesbian couples Wednesday to let same-sex weddings resume in California while the court reviews a 2008 ballot measure that banned such marriages, a process that could take at least one more year.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reaffirmed an order it issued in August, suspending Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional

SFGATE

As I have stated, a common practice.

With your activist nature, and the arguments you have promulgated regarding prop 8, it is impossible to believe you aren't aware of the issues, and more to the fact, impossible to believe you aren't being disengenuous in your argument since these issues have been discussed before and you ahve been in the thick of it.

Interesting strategy. Rather than admit you are wrong and apologize, you make an inane statement, then claim victory. Strangely, I think it works for you.

Apparently you aren't one for taking your own advice.

[Walden]

All in the name of activism eh? Same mindset, same type of people. As a German it is indeed a disturbing thing to see in other nations. Pressure to quite because of one's belief in marriage is indeed very similar to pressuring someone to quite because they happened to be the wrong religion in a country.

Yes, you are of course right....those who support gay marriage are of the "same mindset, same type of people" as those responsible for the extermination of 6 million jews in Nazi Germany. Way to keep it classy....and no, unlike jaybear, your points are never disingenuous. Please, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.

Your comparison would be laughable if I didn't think that you were actually taking yourself seriously.

[Jeff K.]

Yes, you are of course right....those who support gay marriage are of the "same mindset, same type of people" as those responsible for the extermination of 6 million jews in Nazi Germany. Way to keep it classy....and no, unlike jaybear, your points are never disingenuous. Please, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones

I know I am right, and the fact you are attempting to show equivalence rather than state it isn't sw, is evidence of that. The mindset or mob mentality in which people seek to justify oppression, any oppression, such as firing a person for their personal beliefs, something that in no way should have an impact on their job reflects it quite clearly.

It seems your argument of being "classy" while Jaybear continuously obfuscates shows two things. If the person is on your side of the thought process, anything is allowable. The other of course is that you prefer style over substance, given you didn't refute the point at all.

[William Schryver]

As you perfectly well know, "Analytics," he did not take "an activist role to deny same-sex couples the right to have the relationships they wanted." As you perfectly well know, "Analytics," Prop 8 did not in any way prevent anyone from having whatever relationships, however corrupt, they might want. It merely prevented government sanction thereof.

That's what it did, and that's all it did.

Your heavily loaded question presupposes a falsehood. As, of course, you prefer.

Regards,

Pahoran

+1

[Jaybear]

+1

That's "all"? Yes, kudus to Pahoran for understating the importance of the issue to both sides.

Why should gays be offended. He only fought to take away their right to marry. That's all.

[Jaybear]

Jeff, lets make this as simple as we can. Here is how our discussion flowed.

Gays had the right to legally marry prior to the passage of Prop 8. I understand some 15,000 gay couples were married in California, before voters took away that right, thanks in part to the efforts of people like Mr. Vidmar.

The 15K gay couples married did so because a judge chose to allow it even though a good chance existed that the courts or the people would decide that calling a gay union marriage (even as all the rights of union were there) was incorrect.

SFGATE

"The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reaffirmed an order it issued in August, suspending Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional"

As I have stated, a common practice.

Judge Walker had nothing to do with the 15,000 gay couples that married following the CA Supreme Court ruling and prior to the passage of Prop 8.

The CA Supreme court is the supreme court on matters of CA constitutional law.

I hope that clears things up for you. But I am not optimistic.

[Jeff K.]

False.

All judges knew it was going up for appeal, and we know that the common practice is for such issues. To suspend judgement until a higher court (one you obfuscated about and implied did not exist) awaited cert. The federal appeals court is higher than the California Supreme Court and can overturn it's decision. Everyone knows that, that is why it goes up for appeal.

The judge knew by not suspending the decision until it was appealed he would in effect be opening a floodgate of potentially false marriages. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Disengenuous arguments do your position no good because everyone sees through them. The 15K marriages would not have been an issue if the politically driven judge had followed a normal course of events.

[Jaybear]

Yes, you are of course right....those who support gay marriage are of the "same mindset, same type of people" as those responsible for the extermination of 6 million jews in Nazi Germany. Way to keep it classy....and no, unlike jaybear, your points are never disingenuous. Please, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.

Your comparison would be laughable if I didn't think that you were actually taking yourself seriously.

At least give him credit for being consistent. In the thread on BOM play, when I said that I did not think the world would be a better place if people did not make fun of others' sacred beliefs, he said:

The nationalist socialist party agrees with you, that is how it started in the 1930's.

I support gay rights, and free speech. So of course that makes me a NAZI.